Please see embedded comments below.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Lane <kyrrin_at_bluefeathertech.com>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: !Re: Nuke Redmond!
> At 22:20 05-04-2000 -0600, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
> >I really can't understand what all the hostility toward Microsoft is
about.
>
> Simple. Arrogance, bloated and bug-ridden products that are overpriced,
> and unrestrained greed.
>
Well, there's plenty of arrogance to go around.
>
> >If it weren't for the low prices resulting from the economy of scale,
scale
> >which is enabled by the fact that Microsoft made computers simple enough
to
> >use that the masses could and would use them.
>
There were plenty of other players on the scene. Just look at DEC. They
wanted to make computers more costly, less convenient, less accessible.
It's justice that they're history! They weren't alone in this and I expect
some of the others, notably IBM, to go away eventually as well, though
probably not as kindly as DEC went. They, at least, are working on bringing
new technology to the market, rather than repainting the old stuff and
trumpeting that the new color made it new technology.
>
> And do you really think those things wouldn't have happened if Micro$platt
> had not come on the scene?
>
> Computers would have evolved to the point you described in any case. It's
> just a matter of who would have helped drive said evolution.
>
> >If you want to dog somebody, the go after DEC, (God be thanked that
they're
> >gone!) with their antiquated technology always a generation behind
everyone
> >else and with their ridiculous prices.
>
> I'll have you know, sir, that much of that "antiquated technology" is
> driving my intranet, and I'm darn proud to have it! I trust the MicroVAX
> III's and SPARC IPX's I have a lot more than I do much of the "commodity"
> PeeCee hardware that's flooded the market.
>
> Also, if DEC's stuff was so useless, who was it that had a true
> multitasking/multiuser computer and OS combo, in the mid-70's, that ran in
> less than 64K of RAM and could accomodate over a hundred users?
>
Now if they had simply made their computers evolve beyond that point,
particularly in the economic aspect. What did the complete computer cost in
Y2K dollars? Include the OS, the rotating memory, etc, assuming you had
nothing to start with.
>
> Let's see a modern NT box do that. I don't think so!
>
I never said they were perfect. Nonetheless, I see more NT boxes than VMS
ones these days.
>
> >If DEC had had their way you'd have to use a single flip=flop pair for
which
> >they charged you 10^15 bucks per year and which broke twice a month so
some
> >under-trained ignoramus could come around and pretend to fix the thing.
>
> You speak as though you think DEC would have been the only player in town.
> What about IBM? Digital Research? Kaypro? Commodore? Data General? Sun?
> Shall I go on?
>
> Also, I've met quite a few old-line FE's, mainly when I was working as a
> lab tech with an 11/70 in the late 70's. Every one of them was fully
> qualified to trouble-shoot to the component level, using O-scope,
> multimeter, and anything else they needed. Are you sure "under-trained
> ignoramus" fits that description?
>
I know a few who were pretty smart as well, but I never got to see them
work. The ones I saw couldn't do what you describe, and probably would have
had problems with any task. My experience with one client back in the early
'80's when DEC was purporedly at its finest, was the DEC couldn't ship two
identically configured systems. We had redundancy requirements and someone
had designed hardware that figured out whether a given system was
malfunctioning and discarded its outputs if they were wrong. (don't ask me
how!) What was required was that two 11/44's be setup identically in every
way, both hardware and software. That doesn't strike me as particularly
challenging, but I guess it was. Ultimately, the two 11/44's, et al, were
replaced with three APPLE-]['s. That was much more straightforward,
apparently.
>
> >Forget about the C++ or C or Delphi! These guys took 6 weeks to learn
the
> >VB and now most of them have paid off their houses, cards, and credit
cards
> >and vacation in Arruba in the winter and Alaska in the summer. at least
> >twice. The oldest of the guys I know doing this is 35 and worth over
$10^7
>
> And how many 80+ hour work weeks did it take him to get there? How many is
> he still doing? What good is a six or seven-figure income if you run
> yourself into the ground getting it, or maintaining it? Money does not
last
> forever, nor can it buy true happiness or inner peace.
>
Well, if you're not willing to do what the other guy won't you don't deserve
the big bucks. I've worked long hours nearly all my life and it's never
made me rich, though. In retrospect, I should have learned to use VB, but I
didn't want to be a programmer.
>
> I can only speak for myself, but sitting in front of a screen for 12+ hour
> days grinding out nothing but abstract code would drive me bonkers inside
> of a week. I prefer to work with REAL hardware, thank you. Things I can
> actually see, touch, and manipulate with hand tools, solder/desolder
> equipment, and a nice test bench full of instruments.
>
> If that means I don't get to vacation in Arruba and Alaska every year, so
> be it. At least I'll still have my sanity (and fewer worries about the
> Infernal Revenue Dis-Service).
>
> >net. Five years ago, he was begging me for work. How many guys do you
know
> >who have net savings of over a year's gross after only five years? That
> >certainly indicates VB is not just a joke.
>
> No, it's not a joke. It is a useful language for what it does. But it is
> NOT suitable for every imaginable application. Each language -- C, C++,
> ADA, Pascal, whatever -- has its own strengths and weaknesses. I would
> hardly choose VB to write, say, code for an embedded microcontroller. Nor
> would I choose it if I just needed a simple program in ANSI BASIC for an
> older system.
>
There is a large class of problems for which VB is the obvious solution. If
you try to approach them with other tools they may ultimately be solved.
These fellows to whom I referred don't get paid for solving the problem
alone. They get paid for doing it QUICKLY. One very impressive case I
remember was one in which one of my former business partners had worked on a
project for nearly six months and looked like he was going to miss his
delivery. In half a day with one of my former associates, for whom,
incidentally, I had done work since then, showed him how to solve his entire
problem, starting from scratch in VB, and consuming less than a day's
effort. That doesn't say VB is wonderful, but it does say it's appropriate
for some things, don't you agree?
>
> If I wanted to write a Windoze app, however, it would be my first choice.
>
> I'm curious... if you're so enamored of VB and PCs, and not so much of
> "antiquated technology," why are you even subscribed to this list?
>
I like the old stuff because you have control of everything that went on. I
also recognize that these old timers are still capable of doing lots of
useful work. What's more, the direction in which PC hardware is headed
suggests that the PC is no longer an appropriate platform for doing
instrumentation, control, telelmetry, etc, as it once was. In another year
or two, it will be a little pizza box or built into a monitor enclosure with
just the I/O that the majority wants. That's the natural consequence of the
PC having found its ultimate niche in the universe. One might say that the
old S-100 systems were more broadly applicable than the PC systems of today,
Microsoft was in them, too, however.
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Bruce Lane, Owner and head honcho, Blue Feather Technologies
> http://www.bluefeathertech.com // E-mail: kyrrin_at_bluefeathertech.com
> Amateur Radio: WD6EOS since Dec. '77
> "Our science can only describe an object, event, or living thing in our
> own human terms. It cannot, in any way, define any of them..."
Received on Thu Apr 06 2000 - 11:34:30 BST